[Big_Monkey]

"I simply pointed out that the CITIES of NY and SF are not the sole indicator of the STATE and how it might vote, as evidenced by Reagan's sweeping success in California despite having lost the liberal bastion of San Francisco.

Obama carried California by over 3 million votes, in an election that saw just over 13.5 million votes cast. Are you taking the position that these "Reagan voters" from 30 years ago just sat home this election? And, they must have sat home the last 6 elections as California also has two of the most liberal Senators in the country and an ever-shrinking GOP caucus as well.

And, when cities are as densely populated as SF and especially NY, they may not be the sole indicators, but they certainly are significant indicators of how a state may vote.

[pgyanke]

I would say that a high number of Reagan voters did stay home last election. They had no one to vote FOR. And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings us full-circle in this conversation.

[calcowgirl]

Are you taking the position that these "Reagan voters" from 30 years ago just sat home this election?

No.

Are you implying that John McCain was a Ronald Reagan?

And, they must have sat home the last 6 elections as California also has two of the most liberal Senators in the country and an ever-shrinking GOP caucus as well.

When the state GOP stabbed their own conservative candidates in the back, it is no wonder they lost. They're doing it again by pushing Fiorina.

[calcowgirl]

And, when cities are as densely populated as SF and especially NY, they may not be the sole indicators, but they certainly are significant indicators of how a state may vote.

San Francisco has 477,000 registered voters out of 17 million state wide. It is an indicator of how the far-left votes, not much else.